An interesting contradiction I have long noticed about feminism is how anti-female it can be.
Consistantly female traits are discouraged while masculine traits are encouraged.
But isn’t telling women they will be more successful if they act more like men than women actually sexist?
And yet for years the equal rights movement has basically only been reinforcing the message that being a woman is NOT good.
Ironic? Wouldn’t it be better for a pro-women’s movement to actually be positive about being female?
I say better to really embrace and celebrate who you are than try to be a poor imitation of what you are not. And my observations have found women who are comfortable with their femininity are often more successful than those who perceive it as a negative they have to suppress or overcome.
What do you think? Please share in the comments!
Fnu Mnu Lnu said:
Feminism is anti-female and anti-male. can one be sexist if they hate both sexes equally?
sorry, all of the other sexes are made up, and not real.
FML, interesting, and yes feminism is anti-male too, in fact. But yet it promotes masculine qualities IN WOMEN as “better” than feminine, yet vilifies the same in men. And perhaps you are right that the end goal is really androgyny.
The more one thinks about it logically, the less and less logical the whole movement is!
Ash Pariseau said:
The way I understand it is that for as long as feminists are seeing men reject their softer side, they too will reject their softer side.
I know damn well that femininity isn’t weak, but I don’t think they know that. They think men view femininity as weak, and so they will too.
Feminism is anti-male IN MEN. They’d prefer men act feminine. So it is androgyny.
I guess you can’t be really a sexist if your goal is to eliminate the differences in the sexs. Perhaps the better term is they are sexaphobes or genderphobes.
Fnu Mnu Lnu said:
i don’t know if the main goal is “androgyny”. it seems to me that their main goal is for everyone to be equally unhappy. or for everyone else to be more unhappy than they are.
because i don’t believe that there is a single so-called feminist, that is happy in their own life.
Fnu Mnu Lnu said:
are men really rejecting a woman’s softer side?
Ash Pariseau said:
No, they think men are rejecting their own softer side. They know men want women to be soft, and they won’t care for as long as men see it bad for themselves to be that way.
A woman’s softer side doesn’t make me go into revulsion like a woman’s aggressive, bitchy side does.
Forget about all the practices (yes they are sexiest). The actual term is sexiest.
That may or may not be a bad thing. I am absolutely sexiest when looking for a life partner.
Ash Pariseau said:
I think we all try to be ‘sexiest’ when looking for a life partner.
I have to agree. This does not respond to reason, nor does it lead to a positive goal. I do have to agree with Chateau Heartiste in that it is an attempt to improve the lot of average women in the sexual marketplace. This would be at the expense of better looking women.
Fnu Mnu Lnu said:
@fuzzie, but in reality all it does is to lessen the lot of average women in the marriage marketplace. As for the sexual marketplace, it makes women more prone to being a hit-and-run/one night stand.
Because guys would still fuck a feminist, but done want to be stuck with one long term.
Fnu Mnu Lnu said:
“Don’t”, not “done”.
I have to agree. It has wrecked the marriage marketplace. We are quickly getting to the point where benefits are starting to appear thin. If we can get to this conclusion so quickly, what is it with feminists?
Fnu Mnu Lnu said:
Because just like any other “ism’s”, they are focusing on their goals instead of the results that are actually happening. They will double down, believing that all it will take is a larger helping of ‘more of the same’ to reach their goals.
This is what happens when you fundamentally don’t understand the ‘other side’.
Feminism is a range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve political, economic, personal, and social equality of sexes. This includes seeking to establish educational and professional opportunities for women that are equal to those for men.
Re the political, economic, personal, and social categories – the only category where a women could possibly be pregnant and still equal to a man would be political. That is, a pregnant woman can vote just as a man can, even though she is pregnant. For the other categories, it is impossible for a pregnant woman to be equal to a man: employment opportunities need to be different during pregnancy (no diggin ditches, etc.); personal opportunities are different (no 10K runs after a certain point in pregnancy); social opportunities are different (particularly if she is confined to bed rest by her doctor in order to keep the pregnancy).
The only way that women can achieve equality with men in opportunities in each of those four categories is to become like men. That is, not ever get pregnant and become dependent on others to do for you what you can’t do while pregnant.
If the goals of feminism described in the first paragraph above are to be met, a woman must become more like a man – so that they can operate as freely as men can in responding to opportunities. That mostly means not getting pregnant and reducing the effects of menstruation as much as possible. But also – riffing on the link I posted at the end of the last thread – there are a number of physiological things that can go wrong with the female plumbing that directly affect the correct balance of hormones necessary for one to be both efficient and effective (which requires no brain fog). So, getting rid of as much female plumbing as possible would also be part of enhancing a female’s ability to achieve political, economic, personal, and social equality of the sexes.
We could go on, but hopefully the point has become obvious: To achieve political, economic, personal, and social equality of the sexes, women need to jettison pregnancy, menstruation, and female organs – and become more like a man. Otherwise, these things will lead them to being treated differently from men and having different opportunities than men have.
If sexism is the belief that one sex or gender is intrinsically superior to another, then encouraging women to get rid of the attributes of womanhood and become more like men in the chase for equality of opportunity is definitely sexist.
Farm Boy said:
So what is the definition of “sexist”?
I think that women have not sen a penalty yet for wrecking the marriage marketplace. We are on the verge of it, though.
I’ll leave it to feminists to play weasel word games. Once they do that, most will ignore them.
Fnu Mnu Lnu said:
@fuzzie. Some of the smart ones have already seen it, and are pissed. A former coworker of mine went on a long rant last year, about how certain women were ruining things, and made it so that she was having a hard time finding a decent guy to get in to a relationship with. This young lady is absolutely stunning, and no one would ever believe that she would have a problem finding a guy. But according to her, guys are too hesitant to get involved, after being burned by “those kinds of women”.
I am sure that she is in the minority of women, who can actually see what is happening right in front of their eyes.
For her to see it, she has to be looking for a relationship and able to put herself in men’s shoes. That would be a minority on both counts. Still, it does come to me as good news.
@fml did you have any words of wisdom for the young gal seeking marriage? It’s pissible but I think a gal would really have to make a concerted effort to set herself apart, be sure she puts herself in situations where likeminded men may be, and also to specifically seek a marriage minded guy vs just aimlessly dating and figuring, “it will happen when the time is right.”
Fnu Mnu Lnu said:
Yes i did. But i am too old for her! lol
She really doesn’t need tips, because she is pretty amazing all on her own. It’s more that the pool of candidates has self-decimated.
Scary chart inside article. 3\4 chance of being married in 1960 was at 23, in 2016 it was 37.
And this is before the current crop of 20 year old men to whom “mgtow” is a concept get on the chart. Imagine the effect ten years from now as they work their way up tnbe age ladder.
Looking for stats on being married 30 years like me
I googled “still married after 30 years”.
Every article was on getting divorced. Here are cut and paste the suggested searches.
leaving a marriage after 30 years
marriage breakdown after 30 years
how to survive divorce after 30 years of marriage
divorce after 30 years of marriage alimony
divorce after 35 years of marriage
separating after 40 years of marriage
percentage of divorce after 30 years of marriage
divorce after 33 years of marriage”
Took until the fourth page of results to get a single entry that was pro marriage.
P.s. still trying to find stats on probability of a 30 year marriage.
Percent Reaching Stated Anniversary by Marriage Cohort and Sex, for First Marriages:
(Numbers in thousands)
year Number of marriages 5th 10th 15th 20th 25th 30th 35th 40th
1960 to 1964. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,150 94.6 83.4 74.7 70.2 66.9 64.5 62.1 60.1
1965 to 1969. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,658 91.7 80.0 69.9 65.8 62.7 60.5 57.9 (X)
1970 to 1974. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,036 88.0 75.0 65.7 60.2 56.8 53.8 (X) (X)
1975 to 1979. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,901 88.2 73.4 63.7 58.7 54.4 (X). (X) (X)
1980 to 1984. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,144 90.6 74.3 65.2 60.0 (X). (X) (X) (X)
1985 to 1989. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,670 87.7 75.4 66.6 (X) (X). (X). (X) (X)
1990 to 1994. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,569 89.7 77.3 (X). (X). (X) (X). (X) (X)
1995 to 1999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,088 89.6 (X). (X) (X). (X). (X) (X) (X)
2009 u.s. census
Four pages in before you found a positive article on marriage? I don’t think you are going to find statistics for being married thirty years. My parents would have, had my mother lived that long. Mortality may be an issue with that too.
So in 2009 a 1988 marriage like mine had a 2:3 chance of getting to 15 years and estimating a 1:2 (54 in 1979 losing 2% every five years) of getting to 25.
So to raise a first child to maturity (20 + pregnancy plus 3 years getting ready=25)
Is a DOCUMENTED 1:2 chance for every single marriage.
And that was ten years ago.
Step right up men!
Red or Black! We spin the wheel. Losers get shot in the balls.
Mmmm mm. Gimme a steaming mug o’that!!
Can’t argue statistics!!
Whaaaaaaa but think of the children!!!!!! Whaaaaaaa!
Popcorn!! Gettchore Popcorn Heare! Redhots!! Popcorn!!
Blush Dot said:
And it goes quite far. Anything consideredly traditionally feminine or liked by women of old is rather hated by feminists, like romance novels and pop music.
Taylor Swift gets a lot of hate from feminists. She’s just too girly for them to accept, even when she joins feminist causes. One recent excuse they use is that she has never explicitly denounced Donald Trump, and that she is secretly a white supremacist. They believe her single “Look What You Made Me Do” is actually a white power anthem.
I don’t even know.
According to feminists, you have to actively support their cause and look like you support their cause ALL THE TIME or you are the enemy. Taylor Swift was always suspect not for her actions, but because she was feminine.
Larry G said:
LOL!!! “Popcorn!! Gettchore Popcorn Heare! Redhots!! Popcorn!!”
Need to figure out a way to sell tickets to the “event”, Horseman
I had no idea that feminists were down on Taylor Swift. She has made a video in that past about taking out revenge on a boyfriend. I think she vandalized his car. They shouldn’t make an enemy out of her. She could do them some damage.
I think “redhots” are hot dogs.
Fnu Mnu Lnu said:
Or these. http://www.ferrarausa.com/brands/red-hots/
‘I had no idea that feminists were down on Taylor Swift.’
Before she went full music industry…she had the looks and at one time more feminine mannerisms. They probably still think that of her because they are like elephants.
You are insulting elephants. To begin with, they have much better dispositions than feminists.
I had forgotten about the candy.
Pingback: Is Feminism Sexist? — Notes From a Red Pill Girl – Female.society
@ Blush Dot, I know several “Facebook friends” questioned why there were no pics of my daughters and I at the Women’s pink hat marches. I said I was working… But the point is, women who were there, noticed who wasn’t! I am sure I am in the questionable camp just for that one misstep alone. I am not anti-female, but I am anti whatever feminism has turned into these days — way past the original concept!
SFC Ton said:
Is feminism sexist?
Don’t care enough about feminims or feminist to ponder the question
Blush Dot said:
I definitely felt that same pressure. Feminism uses social media to bully other women into promoting their cause. If they fail to do so, they ostracize them. It’s a bit part of fourth-wave feminism right now.
Just checking in again, been a weird few days. Very weird, actually. So Monday I went to the lung doctor, referred to by my PHP … family doctor. GF said I needed to get checked out, doesn’t want to marry someone who’s about to keel over. So I do. Lung doc says according to my symptoms something’s effed up and I better get some tests. Guess GF is smart cookie to send me. So Tues … I go to the local hospital to get worked over … blood drawn, breathing tests and a CT Scan … injected iodine into my body via IV. Scan says I’m fucked up; scar tissue and enlarged lymph nodes in the lungs. So immediate referral to another lung doc. Saw him yesterday; Weds. Who confirms … something’s effed up. Need to get checked out even worse … 9 vials of blood drawn to check out everything and need a tube to be shoved down my throat so a biopsy can take a sample of the shit on my lungs; whatever it is … not looking good. They took the blood but … 12 hours from now I’ll be on the table unconscious with a machine clipping out part of my lungs to see if I’m gonna die pretty soon … or not. Loads of fun.
Does Stephanie still hate me ? Didn’t check the last thread and didn’t see her posting in this one. Maybe she’s awol ? Do I care ? Lol.
GF is still by my side. She’s a trooper. Knew it and she shows it every day. She’ll be dropping me off at the hospital tomorrow and my mother picking me up. Can’t drive after sedation don’t you know. When shit get serious you quickly find out who’s got your back and who doesn’t. She wanted this checked off the list and so there I went. Not sure I wanted to know the answer it brought … but that’s life. Life is awesome sometimes and sometimes it sucks. Helps to know the difference. And who’s got your back. And who doesn’t.
No, I’m not a smoker. Haven’t had a cig in over 10 years. Prior smoker though … but for far shorter and far less than millions of others. So why me ? I haven’t a clue. Is it cancer ? Am I gonna die ? Don’t think so and hope not, but who knows. And that’s how life works … nobody knows how its going to work out. And we just pray for the best.
That’s all. Sorry to interrupt your web surfing with real life issues … but I got other things on my mind.
Oh, just realized that I should have at least said something regarding Bloom’s original post … and not just rambled on about my situation. Bloom … yes, Feminism is very sexists. It originally was for trying to get equal rights for women … which it achieved like 20 yrs ago. Ever since, it has over shot and not is just about man-hate. Feminism = Man-Hate. That’s all it is. And nothing else.
Feminism teaches women to hate men.
Sad, but true.
@ Mega I hope all goes smoothly tomorrow and that the results are good news. Please keep us posted! Hugs!
Fnu Mnu Lnu said:
Feminism teaches women to hate men.”
and teaches men to ignore women…
George Liquor American said:
There are no waves of feminism. It’s the same shit it has always been. It’s just more in your face now with social media.
Roman Lance said:
I tell my boys, “if you want girls to stay away from you, give them lots of compliments. Tell them they are beautiful and sweet.”
It works. If you want them to pay attention act like they act. Be a bitchy feminist. They will love you good time.
My son says, “dad I can’t do that. I can’t stand these women. How do I pretend to like them when I don’t”.
I’m like, “I know son it seems counter intuitive but trust me it works”. Needless to say he is one aloof cool individual and chicks keep talking to him.
Feminism tells us how women want to be treated. If you want chicks to leave you alone, be nice. Be sweet. Be attentive.
“if you want girls to stay away from you, give them lots of compliments. Tell them they are beautiful and sweet.”
Being submissive to women does turn them off.
Oddly enough being masculine turns them off too.
What Ive noticed is the odd combo that attracts feminists is a combination of being a jerk and a vag worshiper.
Depends on the time of the month Earl, whether they are seeking beta comfort or jerkboy tingles!
Ash Pariseau said:
Aloofness is tricky. Smart women aren’t going to keep chasing after a guy who behaves as if he’s clearly not interested. If you are ok with dumb, foolish girls however, keep being that jerk.
Farm Boy said:
For the sake of criticism, one can treat white males as a group. One is not allowed to do this for any other group. This is very telling
Farm Boy said:
If any group can be singled out for discrimination, that’s not really equality, is it?
Mega – wow, sorry to hear that. and SO glad your GF is sticking by you. yes, times like these show us who our friends are and are not.
you should have followed up on the last thread – go back there, it’s all good. and … no, Stephanie doesn’t hate you!!! i don’t hate you! we don’t hate you!
because the topic of yoga pants has come up with this group a time or two 😉 LOL!
Alan Kardec said:
For the last 30 plus years I have worked with a very large corporation that has been for all that time majority women. This in NYC, so pretty liberal, certainly fem-centric. I really doubt that any of them think of themselves as “feminists” very often but if they were asked they would of course say “yes” they were definitely feminists.
Especially in the last decade we have seen the departure for a number of reasons of many of the remaining men. Those that have stayed on or been hired recently are definitely “minor key males.” As the number of women has crept upwards from 50% to nearly 90% the work load has gone up significantly. Some of this is success, some is the new need for consensus on everything. The ladies require it yet they are stressed to death by all the discussions required to achieve it.
The element they can’t seem to work out is making clean, clear, decisions. Most of this is because the outcome is often negative for someone and none of the ladies want to be “bad.” In fact they have retained one “real man” at the upper levels. His entire job is to say “no.” When he shows up in a meeting it means that something is not going to happen. If all is a go he need not leave his office. We call him “Dr. No.”
The stress of having to “be bad” in their female interpretation forces the top execs to become very harsh seeming, you see it as they move up in the organization. A man would just remain objective, “we’re not going to do your project, better luck next time.” The ladies seem to need to take on this evil, personally combative, energy to communicate the same information. There is also a fair amount of infighting and hurt feelings but a lot of it is caused by the meanness that seems to have to be added to their personalities in order to just be in charge.
I’m guessing that to deal with the emotion and self judgement that come with the job of being an executive requires the women to take on certain masculine qualities (like ruthlessness) in greater proportion than those same qualities exist in men.
When there were more men in top positions to set a good example of doing what was necessary without taking on undue baggage the top women behaved better. Some were seriously good industry leaders making cool impersonal objective decisions and, pretty obviously, sleeping better at night.
I fear that becoming a “powerful women” often means taking on certain male qualities but not the others that create a healthy balance. The more women there are the worse the imbalance gets.
I’m guessing that to deal with the emotion and self judgement that come with the job of being an executive requires the women to take on certain masculine qualities (like ruthlessness) in greater proportion than those same qualities exist in men. … I fear that becoming a “powerful women” often means taking on certain male qualities but not the others that create a healthy balance. The more women there are the worse the imbalance gets.
i think this is insightful. women who try to take over male roles do not have the whole balance of being a man (duh) and so take certain ‘qualities’ to an extreme that is not healthy. we can’t get the balance right because we’re not men, and we cannot ever be men.
the company my Husband works for has been bought out about four times in the nine years we’ve been married, and every.single.time, more women have been added to upper roles. one of those times they put a female in the top position, and she replaced as many men as she could with women before they were bought out again, and she was out. it’s so frustrating.
with rare exception, women are horrible, terrible, managers. i say with rare exception b/c i would assume there are one or two out there who are good. they weren’t good when i was in the workforce some 23+ years ago, none my Husband has experienced have been good, and i never hear any stories from people i know of women who are good managers – they’re only bad.
The stress of having to “be bad” in their female interpretation forces the top execs to become very harsh seeming, you see it as they move up in the organization. A man would just remain objective, “we’re not going to do your project, better luck next time.” The ladies seem to need to take on this evil, personally combative, energy to communicate the same information.
and it’s very much not attractive or respected.
There is also a fair amount of infighting and hurt feelings but a lot of it is caused by the meanness that seems to have to be added to their personalities in order to just be in charge.
there will always be a fair amount of infighting and hurt feelings when you have multiple women around, regardless of their level or role, simply b/c that’s what women do and how they are. and women are mean and ugly. add in extra meanness, and yuck … all around yuck.
So had the test today (it sucked) but the initial results indicated no cancer so that’s good. They are sending the samples out for analysis … got an Appt for next Weds to go over it with the lung specialist doc who ordered it. So not dead yet, lol.
As for the RPG’s post … I’d like to start with an analogy. See most Feminists and progressive, libtard, brainwashed, liberal CULT members … cannot see the forest for the trees. So if you show them something else … something that they CAN SEE. Then if they understand that … then you point out to them … see .. that’s exactly what YOU are doing, its the same thing ! And then they usually double down and deny everything you said and even ignore that they actually agreed with you. So, yeah, pretty much no way to get thru to them. I’ve begun referring to these deranged anti Trump haters as members of a CULT. And, yes, most Feminists are members of the CULT.
So here’s the analogy. Recently, I’ve been looking for a different job. And I work in IT. So I get job info/offers all the time via LinkedIn, etc. So when I see something interesting, I go check out the company and usually there is a Careers section so I end up there. And it almost always is run by the corporate HR department and usually ends up with some bullshit statement promoting diversity. I noticed this recently with one local company and it really pissed me off. The HR folks posted a group photo of the IT department. There were lots of Indians there … on Visas stealing an American’s jobs, nearly 1/2 were women, several were obese black women, and a few were Hispanic people both men and women … same for Asians a few of each. Out of 20 people doing software development … there were TWO WHITE MEN.
Now, the area where I live is 90% white. And its well known that most women don’t like STEM fields … staring at a keyboard/monitor all day while never speaking with a real human being isn’t something they like to do. There are nearly zero Indians, Paki’s, east Asians here. The 10% local non-white is a mix of mostly Blacks and Native peoples, and a few Latinos who have been here for years … not illegal immigrants … but likely of Mexican heritage but here legally for generations. Americans of Hispanic origin.
So given the demographics of the region and the demographics of who goes to college and what degrees those people get … out of a group of 20 people … about 14 would have been WHITE MEN, 3 would have been WHITE WOMEN, and a mix of a few blacks, Latinos, Asians. Based on demographics that’s how the team SHOULD HAVE BEEN COMPOSED.
So how do you get a team that is predominately WHITE AND MALE into a groups that has essentially NO WHITE MALES AND ALL SORTS OF MINORITIES ??? Discrimination, that’s how. Discrimination against whites and mostly against white men. So basically, I learned a new term. And, yes, this is a typical LIBTARD PLOY … take a standard definition and then twist its meaning, who wouldn’t want to promote “diversity” … just like “feminism”, who’d be against that ? See … Diversity doesn’t mean open to other races/cultures like it used to … now … the liberal progressive CULT has defined “diversity” to means WE HATE WHITE MEN AND REFUSE TO HIRE THEM. In fact, most of these groups are literally identifying white men in their groups and running them out or downright firing them and replacing them with someone who is a member of their CULT.
So as a white man, what are you supposed to do ? A DIVERSITY SIGN POSTED BY AN HR DEPARTMENT these days is essentially the same as a company in the deep south in the 1950s posting a sign saying “NO NEGROES”. If you were black back then, looking for a job, and qualified … why in god’s name would you want to work for an organization that flat out states … WE HATE YOU AND EVERYONE LIKE YOU.
Diversity = WHITE MAN HATE.
So here is the analogy. Feminism = MAN HATE. It’s not pro woman. Its not about equal rights. Its about HATING MEN AND DESTROYING MEN any way you can. Like the #metoo movement. Its about targetting men, men in power and DESTROYING THEM.
Sure, Feminism used to be about equality decades ago. But in today’s world that’s not true at all. Feminism is nothing but MAN HATE. That’s what the average woman needs to learn. Take the Red Pill. You’ve been lied to. Femism isn’t pro woman … its ANTI-MEN. So … do you want to make every man on the planet … 1/2 of all humans … do you want to make them your enemy ? If so … become a Feminist. Because its the same thing.
Feminism = MAN HATE = you literally HATE 1/2 of all people alive.
Very insightful Alan, I have seen exactly what you describe as well! I figure it’s behavior formed eons who.
Men worked alone or in units as they hunted and fought off danger. Communication was at a minimum, the focus was the task at hand. Hierarchy was recognized as necessary and needed (in a hunt or battle, the most experienced and best skilled are most likely to lead well. Let’s go w it.) the objective is more important than feels or consensus.
Women lived communally w the young, old, and infirm. Everything happened by building consensus, as life in the village is centered on social glue and ties. Flat heirarchy. Everyone has a voice. Everyone feeling “heard” is really important. It’s about The consensus is needed to function in a village setting. Buck the group and one could end up booted out, locked up, or worse.
What you describe in the work setting is basically this but played out against a modern backdrop compared to way back when.
SFC Ton said:
the company my Husband works for has been bought out about four times in the nine years we’ve been married, and every.single.time, more women have been added to upper roles.
LOL I have done the opposite. I was trying to go to an all male wait staff when the bar finally sold, but every bidness I have bought I made moves to make it more White and male. Have some standards, enforce the standards and the rift raft leaves or gives you reasons to fire them. Pretty much works like magic. Even when my trucking company tanked, the more White men driving my trucks the closer I got to making money…. And the easier it became to mange the company.
SFC Ton said:
I have seen ok lady officers in second row, but vital jobs. Sort of like supply chain manger deals but my impression was even then they would create problems. Like when that one chick attended one of my meetings in yoga pants and got pissy my boys wanted an eye full
Mega excellence re the initial test results, keep us posted!
Alan Kardec said:
Ame: “with rare exception, women are horrible, terrible, managers. i say with rare exception b/c i would assume there are one or two out there who are good.”
I suspect we are using different terms for roughly the same thing.
My own experience has been that lady managers, as in middle managers, have been highly effective. It’s at the executive level where they fall down and, more precisely, at the executive level when they don’t have to compete with top men (who recently seem to have been removed from the running). The women executives who had to compete one-on-one (no quotas or preference that I know of) with men were pretty much as good as the men. I think that’s because they were the best, because they were the ones comfortable with practicing a male style of objectivity (which unfortunately is not present in all males!), and because, at the time they were surrounded by male executives who would 1) support them when they made good (or at least honest) decisions and, 2) set a silent example for good leadership. 20 years ago or so I worked with one lady who was just an extraordinary executive, but she was a rare bird and surrounded, and used to being surrounded, by men who were very effective and set a standard for everyone.
Women in the positions supporting the top executives, especially prior to the conversion of the executives to mostly female, were and still are pretty damn good. I’m talking about middle management types, not secretaries. They were better, in many cases, at getting things done, being diligent, and following up. A significant minority are highly creative and effective ie. the executive asks for something and NEVER has to think about it again or is offered several out of the box solutions that are all potentially good solutions. This could well be specific to my industry, which is ‘soft’ or creative; we’re not out fixing power lines in the middle of ice storms or running nuclear power plants.
The problems in my world have all occurred since there was a critical mass of women, especially at the top levels. That said there is one division that is even MORE female which has been carefully adjusted over the years by a couple of women who are staffing geniuses, and it runs like clockwork. At the moment it’s the perfect mixture of personalities … but I shudder to think what will happen when they have any turnover. I suspect that a more male department would be more stable over time but probably slightly less effective.
Clearly there is an intelligent way of mixing staffs– and I’m talking about just the mixture here, not issues with #Me Too or anything like that –to get the best performance. On projects where I’ve been in charge I have often brought in a couple of younger (though I look for married) women because the guys tend to work harder in order to impress them. It’s pretty effective but not foolproof
Alan – that’s interesting.
the flip side of women in the workforce at certain levels is the instability for the consumer. women flip between their families (when they get one) and their career, and when they choose their family first, the consumer looses.
for example, when my Oldest was a baby we had a female pediatrician for a little while. i remember one time we had to wait for something like an hour or two because her child got sick and she had to take her child to the doctor. as a mother, i understand. as the patient, i’m not happy about it. with a male doc we wouldn’t have that kind of problem unless there was a serious emergency.
a few years ago my girls and i had a female PA we all three LOVED. she really was excellent. then she got married and had babies, and the hours were too much. so she left for a part time gig in another town, leaving us to find another doc. it took a good year or so. as a mother, i understand. as a patient, i’m not happy.
so what those, and other similar situations, have shown me, is that the consumer cannot depend upon women, regardless of their level, in the workforce.
On projects where I’ve been in charge I have often brought in a couple of younger (though I look for married) women because the guys tend to work harder in order to impress them. It’s pretty effective but not foolproof
haha! that’s smart!
It is sexist, confirmed in the article below:
Feminism can def be sexist! I feel some women take it way too far and end up sounding like morons.
Lola Zee said:
You see the problem lies on your belief of female or male qualities. What makes what the males do male qualities? If females can do them,does it still make it make qualities? If males can cook for example,just because more women cook more than men do,does it make it female quality? Its all based on your mentality. And that’s what happens when society tags a job male..and another female when it really shouldn’t be that way. A job is a job,anyone can do anything. Anyone can be anything. Period.
I have thought about this too. As a feminist, this is a topic I have explored in thoughts, in discussion and readings. I have heard that it is not really “feminine” (what society deems feminine) that feminist reject but rather that certain traits define women (women are natural caregivers, emotional, etc) and certain traits define men (men are cool, calm, mathematically inclined, etc). And this is kinda where I stand. I think pigeon holing men and women into certain traits is harmful to both men and women because honestly, people are just people. Yes, there are some differences between men and women (biological reproductive organ differences, hormonal differences, etc) but as for specific personality traits such as men are more mechanically inclined while woman are not, or women are naturally compassionate and emotional while men are not, and so forth is bogus.
Where I find agreement with you is the negativity associated with the traits deemed feminine (by society, not reality). I find the negativity disturbing. Being a caregiver, submissive, emotional, etc are all human expressions and should not get a negative tag by women or men.
However, the very rejection of these traits by women is a sign of oppression. Persons in oppressive states often want to shed any label that they are the oppressed class. For example, people in lower classes often wear fake Jewelry. This is a way for them to put on airs, so to speak, to mimic the oppressor, rather than the oppressed. Women, trying to take on the traits that are deemed masculine by society is a means of coping with their oppressed status. They feel that if they take on the masculine traits they will get the same respect and personhood men have.
I blog on feminism. And appreciate other’s speaking on the topic. https://thefemalegaze2017.blog/
As a feminist, I do not have a problem with Taylor Swift because of her girly persona.
I don’t have a personal problem with yoga pants. I have a problem with only women wearing them (bodies on display in a culture where women are objects) while men remain covered. It creates a imbalance of power. https://thefemalegaze2017.blog/2018/06/17/the-rise-of-sexpandex-the-yoga-pant-revolution/
Brendan Birth said:
I am just a guy here, but I’ve always thought of feminism to be about aiming for women to have rights and opportunities that are equal to those as men. I don’t really think of that as a sexist concept.
There isn’t one kind of feminism. It’s a movement that is unique to everyone because of their opinions, race, class, sexuality etc, so people have different feminisms that work best for them. I think some extreme versions can be prejudice or negative, but I think it’s not good to say that feminism as a whole is sexist because it gives a largely positive movement bad connotations and puts people off from wanting to be a part of it.
your article is sexist. You don’t understand feminism. Without feminists, who came before you, you wouldn’t have the right to vote. When the US was founded, women were property of their fathers to be passed to a husband. A woman could be legally raped by her husband. Feminism gave you the rights over your body, over your womb, and reproductive choices. It’s not about “masculine” and “feminine” as you’ve shallowly written about it. It’s about being a free human being. Pay equity isn’t just about a salary, it’s about being able to won your own property. Women came out of slavery. Feminism is your best bet if you believe in your own human rights.
But, hey if wearing lipstick is all that matters to you, go for it.
There are people who claim to be feminists who don’t understand feminism and may give off a bad vibe about it. Don’t get fooled. Feminism isn’t about espousing male qualities. Feminism is. seeing what society perceives as masculine as something neutral, as something both men and women can do. I, too, was confused about feminism when I came across it. I thought it was only about angry females. But as I learned more about it, I finally understand.
Totally agree.We have chosen the right goal but the wrong way to reach that goal.Thanks for sharing!
I am glad to see we are following the same path. I will in short launch a new feminist movement: feminist because comprehensive: men exclude/women include. Open to all topics and, it goes without saying, to both sexes or a-sexuated people. What one says is not valuable because of whom said it, it is valuable in itself – or it isn’t –
, Let’s keep in touch
It’s not the matter of acting like a man… it’s the matter of defending your right as a woman and that makes it something masculine because the right has been taken away from us for years.